Email from my child’s infant school uk? I’m sorry but this all seems wrong?

[Frazzledmomma123]

Dear Families,

I wanted to address a concern that has understandably been raised regarding the use of a ‘safe word’ to move children out of the classroom. On reflection, we recognise that terms such as safe word and evacuation can raise anxiety and concern.

We agree that children should not have to leave their own classroom in order to feel safe. However, there are times, though not daily, when moving the class is the safest option for all children. This has happened a few times, and only when absolutely necessary. We fully accept having to go to such measures is a worry, but it is a system that schools are having to turn to more and more. I appreciate this provides little comfort, but hopefully helps you hear that supporting emotional regulation has become a real focus and factor for schools nationally.

The children themselves were involved in choosing the word, and the purpose was to minimise panic and keep the situation calm if it needed to be used. Our aim is always for every child to feel safe, happy, and able to learn in their classroom, as is their right. We are putting a range of steps and strategies in place to work towards this, and we do not intend this approach to become the “go‑to.”

We also want to reassure you that we are supporting children to understand that behaviour is a communication of feelings, but the way those feelings are shown must still be safe and appropriate. We do not condone unsafe behaviour, and we share parents’ concerns about children seeing this as “normal.” I have spoken with the class to reiterate that message and reminded them that they should always talk to a trusted adult if they feel unsure or worried. In school, children choose five trusted adults; it may be helpful to have a similar conversation at home about who your child feels they can talk to at school.

We are very aware that things are challenging at the moment. We do not want this to continue, and we are actively putting support in place to help all children feel safe and settled in their learning environment.

Thank you for reading, please keep speaking to us about your concerns.

Or due to poor and neglectful parenting which means the child never exits the 'violent' stage. My 2 year old was briefly a hitter and a biter - I came down on it hard - very strict, no 'validation' of the feeling and it stopped quickly. Other parents do not do this and my child was bitten in reception by an 'NT' child. My view is that this issue is more often linked to social deprivation and resultant poor parenting than actual SEN.

Like a Nurture base? Many schools already do this, but there are so many complicating factors - lots of schools don't have the physical space, it's difficult to recruit and retain specialist staff and you'd have to ensure all the children were getting their year curriculum because curriculum guidelines are so full and inflexibly applied. If there was a quick fix, the schools would be doing it.

Fill in the national consultation and use the more generic questions to tell the government it is vital that all the powers of the tribunal are kept so that children can have suitable special schools named and directed to take them AND that inclusion isn't real inclusion just by keeping nearly all children with SEND in mainstream schools at almost any human cost: https://consult.education.gov.uk/send-strategy-division/send-reform-putting-children-and-young-people-firs/

Yeah, does happen but in my professional experience it is very unusual that there is no SEND and it is 'only' down to parenting.

"My view is that this issue is more often linked to social deprivation and resultant poor parenting than actual SEN." - How do you know this?

Also social deprivation does not automatically result in poor parenting!

Unfortunately Bridget seems more interested in free toast than meeting every child’s needs for a well rounded education. The Tories weren’t any better (and had less free toast!)

I don't 'know' it, I said it was my view. And I didn't say social deprivation always resulted in poor parenting, I indicated that there was a potential correlation between the two. I'm pretty sure parenting when poor is harder than parenting when well resourced, aren't you?

We need to answer difficult questions about why the rates of SEN are increasing, why they are increasing more in certain cultural and/or socio economic contexts and whether the 'inclusive' response is the best response. There will be no improvement in the situation if we can't answer these questions.

I personally believe that about 95% of parenting is “good enough” - not perfect, but not poor or neglectful enough to cause trauma-induced behaviour.

There is snobbery on display here towards “socially deprived” kids who are allowed to use screens. Presumably, in the minds eye of posters, they also eats Greggs sausage rolls, drink fruit shoots, are raised by single mothers and are used to claim DLA. And then raise merry hell at school disrupting the “naice” children’s education.

For balance, DH and I are as middle class as they come - a doctor and a lawyer. I’ve managed teams for decades and now hold a senior leadership role in a global business. We live rurally and have several acres of land for DS to roam around, he has never (and I mean never!) watched TV or played computer games. He has a phenomenal IQ, but was kicked out of school twice before Y1 for extreme meltdowns and violence - he is profoundly autistic. It still took 4 years and a massive bun fight to get him a special school place. None were available in the LA schools, so the LA is paying a fortune to an independent - and nobody likes that either.

In the time spent bitching about crap parenting on here, pp’s could have responded to Bridget’s fanciful white paper in which she imagines that spending tuppence per school on training and purring warmly about inclusivity will magically fix these disruptive children’s struggles. (Spoiler: it won’t, but there WILL be many more threads like this one).

Absolutely

The biggest issue with fixing this is that it will require cross party support, as no government is in power long enough to see any plan through. It's such a big job.

And of course no party is thinking long term when they are only in power for 5 years.

So overhauling is not going to happen.

Your view is wrong. Also, you did say "linked to social deprivation and resultant poor parenting", resultant does mean following as a consequence of...

Of course parenting is much harder under certain socio-economic conditions and this can sometimes contribute to SEN and/or children's behaviour, but that's not really how you brought it up and you also linked it to your view that most SEN is a result of shit parenting. There's a very certain narrative there, so just own it.

But MOST people talking about social deprivation are doing so because they know it's a bad thing and has profound impact on many issues - education, health, mental health, quality of life etc. It's not snobbery driving the discussion.

If you 'personally' believe that 95% of parenting is 'good enough' then perhaps you haven't witnessed much bad parenting or your bar is particularly low.

Too much screen time and poor diets are fundamentally bad for society in the long run. Just because your kid's issues are genuine and worse, doesn't mean people shouldn't care about how the next generation are being raised.

if your kid was physically disabled and unable to go to school you would have to stay home and be their carer

That isn’t true. Most physically disabled DC still attend school, but if they can’t, the LA are still responsible for education.

why the rates of SEN are increasing

There hasn’t been such a big increase in the rate of SEN as some would like people to believe. The most recent statistics released last year show 19.5% of pupils have SEN. In 2010, it was 20.9% or 21.1% (depending on which statistics you look at - I think it is a rounding issue adding up SA, SA+ and SSEN). In 2005, it was 18%. Going back several decades to the Warnock report in 1978, “some 20% appeared to need some form of special educational help. This may even be an underestimate…”

I do own it! It's my view that lots of crap behaviour is a result of bad parenting, lots of which can stem from social deprivation. This is a social problem that we should HELP people with - help the social deprivation and we may see behavioural improvements. Why the hell is that controversial? This does not equate to poor people = bad parents. And also not all bad behaviour is SEN or ND. Absolutely not controversial.

Views like yours are part of the problem. You don’t want such DC in MS, but you don’t want to spend money on SEN provision either. You can’t have it both ways.

Your ridiculous and ignorant plan would cost the state more in the long run because DC who don’t receive the provision they require for their SEN end up costing more.

Yes, yes, yes! It's been accepted as 20% for decades.

DC who regularly get so dysregulated others are evacuated from the classroom do have SEN and require SEP to be made for them. SEMH needs are one of the broad areas of SEN. SEN is a legal term defined in legislation. DC don’t need to have, or go on to get, a diagnosis in order to meet that definition.

I have a DC with complex needs who displays violent and challenging behaviour. It is parenting or social deprivation. None of the many professionals involved think that. Thankfully, he isn’t in MS. He has an EOTAS/EOTIS package. Though as you can see from this thread, some resent that.

But surely you see how this can be a controversial area if no diagnosis is required to meet the legal definition?

My view is that whether it's SEN or just really poor behaviour/trauma, these children should be helped properly outside of mainstream. How are they going to function in the adult world, if not? They should not disrupt the learning of the majority, put them at risk and create an environment of fear. Fortunately I can afford to remove my child from this situation but it's shocking that it's accepted as normal.

That isn’t true. Most physically disabled DC still attend school, but if they can’t, the LA are still responsible for education.

I'm honestly baffled that in 2026 at least one person thinks that physically disabled children just stay at home and don't get an education.

I don't think anyone on this thread has disagreed that children who can't cope in mainstream should have to stay in mainstream. It isn't good for anyone involved.

The issue is LA's insisting children who are very unlikely to cope in MS to attend MS in the first place and then the many years it can take to battle the LA and eventually get specialist provision for them.

It’s not controversial to those who actually understand SEN and SEN law.

Many parents of DC with SEN in MS would prefer their DC weren’t in MS either. The problem is, in many cases parents have to fight for that. It isn’t a matter of asking and it just magically happening. The other problem is, as you can see from this thread, that costs money and some people object to spending money on SEN provision.

Some go on to function in adult life precisely because they receive the support they need as a CYP. Some don’t go on to function in adult life. Not because they have had poor parenting or because of a lack of boundaries/punishment [insert whatever judgemental view you want] but because of their disability &/or not receiving the support they need.

Perhaps or perhaps we need a more objective view point and denying that parenting and/or social deprivation doesn't come into this is fundamentally unhelpful.

The child who throws chairs and attacks people in my daughter's class, comes into school late ,drinking a can of coke and eating a mars bar (age 6). SEN or not, his parents have failed him before the day even starts and almost certainly exacerbated the situation. Some might call this snobbery, I call it reality that needs to be addressed.

Your view isn’t objective.

Well, you do seem to know as have given the answer. Yes, generally, once upon a time, these kids were not in mainstream school. You will find that their parents are just as disappointed and outraged as you are, probably even moreso.

The reality is many schools that would have accommodated these kids have been shut and the schools that still exist have nowhere near the places needed to accomodate these kids who need to be there. So, instead of hitting Mumsnet, maybe hit MP’s and the relevant barriers, although frankly you will be on a hiding to nowhere as no government is going to spend money on this.

Admittedly, it’s a really bad pendulum though. When I was a child (many decades ago), there were way too many kids in ‘special schools’ who should have been in mainstream. Think kids with physical issues, such as significant cerebral palsy, seizure disorders, where in wheelchairs, had significant limb differences etc, who were cognitively fine, no behavioural issues, but were lumped in a class with kids with severe autism, severe intellectual disabilities, and significant behavioural issues. By the way the titles of these schools were just shit also, my local one was called ‘xxxx - School for the Retarded’ (xxx yo decently actual name but the rest of it was the title of the school on a big billboard outside). It was a bloody good day when the realised these schools were completely inappropriate as they were.

The issue was then, they realised they could save absolute bucket loads of money shifting kids out, so they went too far the other way and closed places for kids who SHOULD have been there, then with decreased places came school closures. Now not enough places for requirement, so there is a large load of kids inappropriately shoved in mainstream, and in the main without supports. Utterly shit for everyone involved, your kids, you, and those kids, and their parents.

On the contrary, I suspect I’ve seen a great deal of poor parenting and SEMH children, having volunteered in this area and visited almost every specialist school and mainstream hub in a 30 mile radius. Your view is too simplistic: these are complex problems with no easy answers.

But I think we can agree that they will not be solved by shoehorning ND and SEMH into mainstream because it’s cheaper, and bugger the consequences.

I think you are muddling up SN and SEN.

SEN is an educational term so if someone is really badly parented to the point its impacting on schooling, they would have SEN as they are needing educational support over and above the ordinary offer. Some SEN is temporary, a child might only need SEN support for a few years and then move on.

(I would hope a child with trauma would also get medical help from cahms and a diagnosis for that trauma)

No, I didn't say it was. Neither is yours.

But the scenario I just detailed above IS objectively bad and needs to be addressed. Surely it also doesn't help those with genuinely profound SEN or ND to be lumped together with those for whom there may be a more obvious cause for some dysregulation. I'm not saying either situation is simple, but they are different.